Peer instruction, a form of active learning, is generally defined as an opportunity for peers to discuss ideas or to share answers to questions in an in-class environment, where they also have opportunities for further interactions with their instructor. When implementing peer instruction, instructors have many choices to make about group design, assignment format, and grading, among others. Ideally, these choices can be informed by research about the impact of these components of peer instruction on student learning. This essay describes an online, evidence-based teaching guide published by CBE—Life Sciences Education at http://lse.ascb.org/evidence-based-teaching-guides/peer-instruction. The guide provides condensed summaries of key research findings organized by teaching choices, summaries of and links to research articles and other resources, and actionable advice in the form of a checklist for instructors. In addition to describing key features of the guide, this essay also identifies areas in which further empirical studies are warranted.

As the use of collaborative-learning methods such as group work in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes has grown, so has the research into factors impacting effectiveness, the kinds of learning engendered, and demographic differences in student response. Generalizing across the range of this research is complicated by the diversity of group-learning approaches used. In this overview, I discuss theories of how group-work formats support or hinder learning based on the ICAP (interactive, constructive, active, passive) framework of student engagement. I then use this model to analyze current issues in group learning, such as the nature of student discourse during group work, the role of group learning in making our classrooms inclusive, and how classroom spaces factor into group learning. I identify key gaps for further research and propose implications from this research for teaching practice. This analysis helps identify essential, effective, and efficient features of group learning, thus providing faculty with constructive guidelines to support their work and affirm their efforts.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been described in a range of educational contexts. Although various anticipated learning outcomes (ALOs) have been proposed, processes for identifying them may not be rigorous or well documented, which can lead to inappropriate assessment and speculation about what students actually learn from CUREs. In this essay, we offer a user-friendly and rigorous approach based on evidence and an easy process to identify ALOs, namely, a five-step Process for Identifying Course-Based Undergraduate Research Abilities (PICURA), consisting of a content analysis, an open-ended survey, an interview, an alignment check, and a two-tiered Likert survey. The development of PICURA was guided by four criteria: 1) the process is iterative, 2) the overall process gives more insight than individual data sources, 3) the steps of the process allow for consensus across the data sources, and 4) the process allows for prioritization of the identified abilities. To address these criteria, we collected data from 10 participants in a multi-institutional biochemistry CURE. In this essay, we use two selected research abilities to illustrate how PICURA was used to identify and prioritize such abilities. PICURA could be applied to other CUREs in other contexts.

Helping faculty develop high-quality instruction that positively affects student learning can be complicated by time limitations, a lack of resources, and inexperience using student data to make iterative improvements. We describe a community of 16 faculty from five institutions who overcame these challenges and collaboratively designed, taught, iteratively revised, and published an instructional unit about the potential effect of mutations on DNA replication, transcription, and translation. The unit was taught to more than 2000 students in 18 courses, and student performance improved from preassessment to postassessment in every classroom. This increase occurred even though faculty varied in their instructional practices when they were teaching identical materials. We present information on how this faculty group was organized and facilitated, how members used student data to positively affect learning, and how they increased their use of active-learning instructional practices in the classroom as a result of participation. We also interviewed faculty to learn more about the most useful components of the process. We suggest that this professional development model can be used for geographically separated faculty who are interested in working together on a known conceptual difficulty to improve student learning and explore active-learning instructional practices.

Since 2009, the U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for Biological Sciences has funded Research Coordination Networks (RCN) aimed at collaborative efforts to improve participation, learning, and assessment in undergraduate biology education (UBE). RCN-UBE projects focus on coordination and communication among scientists and educators who are fostering improved and innovative approaches to biology education. When faculty members collaborate with the overarching goal of advancing undergraduate biology education, there is a need to optimize collaboration between participants in order to deeply integrate the knowledge across disciplinary boundaries. In this essay we propose a novel guiding framework for bringing colleagues together to advance knowledge and its integration across disciplines, the “Five ‘C’s’ of Collaboration: Commitment, Collegiality, Communication, Consensus, and Continuity.” This guiding framework for professional network practice is informed by both relevant literature and empirical evidence from community-building experience within the RCN-UBE Advancing Competencies in Experimentation–Biology (ACE-Bio) Network. The framework is presented with practical examples to illustrate how it might be used to enhance collaboration between new and existing participants in the ACE-Bio Network as well as within other interdisciplinary networks.

While many university students take science courses in multiple disciplines, little is known about how they perceive common concepts from different disciplinary perspectives. Structure–property and structure–function relationships have long been considered important explanatory concepts in the disciplines of chemistry and biology, respectively. Fourteen university students concurrently enrolled in introductory chemistry and biology courses were interviewed to explore their perceptions regarding 1) the meaning of structure, properties, and function; 2) the presentation of these concepts in their courses; and 3) how these concepts might be related. Findings suggest that the concepts of structure and properties were interpreted similarly between chemistry and biology, but students more closely associated the discussion of structure–property relationships with their chemistry courses and structure–function with biology. Despite receiving little in the way of instructional support, nine students proposed a coherent conceptual relationship, indicating that structure determines properties, which determine function. Furthermore, students described ways in which they connected and benefited from their understanding. Though many students are prepared to make these connections, we would encourage instructors to engage in cross-disciplinary conversations to understand the shared goals and disciplinary distinctions regarding these important concepts in an effort to better support students unable to construct these connections for themselves.

In biology education research, it has been common to model cognition in terms of relatively stable knowledge structures (e.g., mental models, alternative frameworks, deeply held misconceptions). For example, John D. Coley and Kimberly D. Tanner recently proposed that many student difficulties in biology stem from underlying cognitive frameworks called cognitive construals (CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11[3], 209–215 [2012]; CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14[1], ar8 [2015]). They argued that three such frameworks—teleology, anthropocentrism, and essentialism—cause undergraduate students to hold a range of misconceptions about the biological world. Our purpose in this article is to present an alternative perspective that considers student thinking to be dynamic and context sensitive. Using the example of cognitive construals, we argue that a dynamic perspective creates a burden of proof for claims of cognitive stability—to demonstrate that patterns of thinking are indeed stable across contexts. To illustrate our argument, we report on the results of a study designed to explore the stability of students’ apparent teleological, anthropocentric, and essentialist thinking. Our results are inconsistent with framework models. We propose instead that response patterns stem from students’ context-specific interpretations of the statements, consistent with dynamic models of cognition. Building on these preliminary findings, we discuss the implications of a dynamic view of cognition for biology education research and biology instruction.

Collaboration is an important career skill and vital to student understanding of the social aspects of science, but less is known about relationships among collaborative-learning strategies, classroom climate, and student learning. We sought to increase the collaborative character of introductory undergraduate laboratory classrooms by analyzing a 9-week intervention in 10 classrooms (n = 251) that participated in cooperative-learning modules (promoting interdependence via a modified jigsaw technique). Students in an additional 10 classrooms (n = 232) completed the same material in an unstructured format representative of common educational practice. Results showed that, when between-class variance was controlled for, intervention students did not score higher on weekly quizzes, but science interest and prior science experience had a reduced relationship to quiz performance in intervention classrooms. Also, intervention classrooms showed increased collaborative engagement at both whole-class and individual levels (24 students at three time points), but the intervention was only one of several factors found to account for late-intervention classroom collaborative engagement (prosocial behavior and discussion practices). Taken together, findings suggest that integrating interdependence-based tasks may foster collaborative engagement at both small-group and whole-classroom levels, but by itself may not be enough to promote increased student achievement.

Student misconceptions are an obstacle in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses and unless remediated may continue causing difficulties in learning as students advance in their studies. Writing-to-learn assignments (WTL) are characterized by their ability to promote in-depth conceptual learning by allowing students to explore their understanding of a topic. This study sought to determine whether and what types of misconceptions are elicited by WTL assignments and how the process of peer review and revision leads to remediation or propagation of misconceptions. We examined four WTL assignments in an introductory biology course in which students first wrote about content by applying it to a realistic scenario, then participated in a peer-review process before revising their work. Misconceptions were identified in all four assignments, with the greatest number pertaining to protein structure and function. Additionally, in certain contexts, students used scientific terminology incorrectly. Analysis of the drafts and peer-review comments generated six profiles by which misconceptions were addressed through the peer-review process. The prevalent mode of remediation arose through directed peer-review comments followed by correction during revision. It was also observed that additional misconceptions were elicited as students revised their writing in response to general peer-review suggestions.

Instructor-generated videos have become a popular way to engage students with material before a class, yet this is a relatively unexplored area of research. There is support for the use of videos in which instructors tutor students, but few studies have been conducted within the context of a classroom. In this study, conducted in a large-enrollment college physiology course, we used a randomized crossover design to compare the impact of two types of instructor-generated videos that students watched as part of their preclass assignments. We compared videos featuring only an instructor (instructor-only videos) with videos featuring an instructor tutoring a student (instructor–tutee videos). We analyzed student survey responses and weekly physiology quiz scores and found that students preferred, enjoyed, and valued the instructor-only videos significantly more than the instructor–tutee videos. In contrast to prior literature, students with a grade point average (GPA) below the median (3.49) performed significantly better on physiology quizzes after watching instructor-only videos compared with instructor–tutee videos. Students with a GPA at or above the median performed equivalently on physiology quizzes after watching instructor-only or instructor–tutee videos. We present this study as an example of bringing cognitive science studies into the context of a real physiology classroom.

To test the hypothesis that adding course structure may encourage self-regulated learning skills resulting in an increase in student exam performance in the community college setting, we added daily preclass online, open-book reading quizzes to an introductory biology course. We compared three control terms without reading quizzes and three experimental terms with online, open-book reading quizzes; the instructor of record, class size, and instructional time did not vary. Analyzing the Bloom’s taxonomy level of a random sample of exam questions indicated a similar cognitive level of high-stakes assessments across all six terms in the study. To control for possible changes in student preparation or ability over time, we calculated each student’s grade point average in courses other than biology during the term under study and included it as a predictor variable in our regression models. Our final model showed that students in the experimental terms had significantly higher exam scores than students in the control terms. This result shows that online reading quizzes can boost achievement in community college students. We also comment on the importance of discipline-based education research in community college settings and the structure of our community college/4-year institution collaboration.

The transition to college is challenging for most students, especially those who aspire to major in the science, technology, engineering, or mathematics disciplines, in which introductory courses can be large and instruction less than optimal. This paper describes a novel, disciplinary first-year seminar (FYS) course, Exploring Biology, designed to address many of the challenges facing aspiring biology students beginning their academic careers at a large public research university. The course addresses typical FYS goals, such as community building, introduction to resources, and academic skill development, and introduces students to the core concepts of biology defined in the 2011 Vision and Change report. Relative to a matched comparison group of students, Exploring Biology alumni were retained at higher rates and had higher levels of academic performance in a subsequent introductory biology course, suggesting Exploring Biology has a positive impact on future academic performance in the discipline. Results from course evaluations and an alumni survey show that, overall, students valued both the FYS components and biology components of the course. These results provide evidence that the Exploring Biology disciplinary FYS model is an intervention that may increase academic success and retention in biology.

Providing students with one-on-one interaction with instructors is a big challenge in large courses. One solution is to have students interact with their peers during class. Reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT) is a more involved interaction that requires peers to alternate the roles of “teacher” and “student.” Theoretically, advantages for peer tutoring include the verbalization and questioning of information and the scaffolded exploration of material through social and cognitive interaction. Studies on RPT vary in their execution, but most require elaborate planning and take up valuable class time. We tested the effectiveness of a “teach and question” (TQ) assignment that required student pairs to engage in RPT regularly outside class. A quasi-experimental design was implemented: one section of a general biology course completed TQ assignments, while another section completed a substitute assignment requiring individuals to review course material. The TQ section outperformed the other section by ∼6% on exams. Session recordings were coded to investigate correlation between TQ quality and student performance. Asking more questions was the characteristic that best predicted exam performance, and this was more predictive than most aspects of the course. We propose the TQ as an easy assignment to implement with large performance gains.

Active learning with clickers is a common approach in high-enrollment, lecture-based courses in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In this study, we describe the procedures that faculty at one institution used when implementing clicker-based active learning, and how they situated these activities in their class sessions. Using a mixed-methods approach, we categorized faculty into four implementation styles based on quantitative observation data and conducted qualitative interviews to further understand why faculty used these styles. We found that faculty tended to use similar procedures when implementing a clicker activity, but differed on how they situated the clicker-based active learning into their courses. These variations were attributed to different faculty goals for using clicker-based active learning, with some using it to engage students at specific time points throughout their class sessions and others who selected it as the best way to teach a concept from several possible teaching techniques. Future research should continue to investigate and describe how active-learning strategies from literature may differ from what is being implemented.

Explicit emphasis on teaching science process skills leads to both gains in the skills themselves and, strikingly, deeper understanding of content. Here, we created and tested a series of online, interactive tutorials with the goal of helping undergraduate students develop science process skills. We designed the tutorials in accordance with evidence-based multimedia design principles and student feedback from usability testing. We then tested the efficacy of the tutorials in an introductory undergraduate biology class. On the basis of a multivariate ordinary least-squares regression model, students who received the tutorials are predicted to score 0.82 points higher on a 15-point science process skill assessment than their peers who received traditional textbook instruction on the same topic. This moderate but significant impact indicates that well-designed online tutorials can be more effective than traditional ways of teaching science process skills to undergraduate students. We also found trends that suggest the tutorials are especially effective for nonnative English-speaking students. However, due to a limited sample size, we were unable to confirm that these trends occurred due to more than just variation in the student group sampled.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) provide a promising avenue to attract a larger and more diverse group of students into research careers. CUREs are thought to be distinctive in offering students opportunities to make discoveries, collaborate, engage in iterative work, and develop a sense of ownership of their lab course work. Yet how these elements affect students’ intentions to pursue research-related careers remain unexplored. To address this knowledge gap, we collected data on three design features thought to be distinctive of CUREs (discovery, iteration, collaboration) and on students’ levels of ownership and career intentions from ∼800 undergraduates who had completed CURE or inquiry courses, including courses from the Freshman Research Initiative (FRI), which has a demonstrated positive effect on student retention in college and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. We used structural equation modeling to test relationships among the design features and student ownership and career intentions. We found that discovery, iteration, and collaboration had small but significant effects on students’ intentions; these effects were fully mediated by student ownership. Students in FRI courses reported significantly higher levels of discovery, iteration, and ownership than students in other CUREs. FRI research courses alone had a significant effect on students’ career intentions.

This study aimed to discern sociocultural processes through which students learn in field excursions. To achieve this aim, short-term ethnographic techniques were employed to examine how undergraduate students work and enact knowledge (or knowing) during a specific field excursion in biology. The students participated in a working practice that employed research methods and came to engage with various biological phenomena over the course of their work. A three-level analysis of the students’ experiences focused on three processes that emerged: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. These processes derive from advances in practice-oriented theories of knowing. Through their work in the field, the students were able to enact science autonomously; they engaged with peers and teachers in specific ways and developed new understandings about research and epistemology founded on their experiences in the field. Further discussion about the use of “practice” and “work” as analytical concepts in science education is also included.

A common challenge in the evaluation of K–12 science education is identifying valid scales that are an appropriate fit for both a student’s age and the educational outcomes of interest. Though many new scales have been validated in recent years, there is much to learn about the appropriate educational contexts and audiences for these measures. This study investigated two such scales, the DEVISE Self-Efficacy for Science scale and the Career Interest Questionnaire (CIQ), within the context of two related health sciences projects. Consistent patterns were found in the reliability of each scale across three age groups (middle school, high school, early college) and within the context of each project. As expected, self-efficacy and career interest, as measured through these scales, were found to be correlated. The pattern of results for CIQ scores was also similar to that reported in other literature. This study provides examples of how practitioners can validate established measures for new and specific contexts and provides some evidence to support the use of the scales studied in health science education contexts.

A new assessment tool, Ecology and Evolution–Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science or EcoEvo-MAPS, measures student thinking in ecology and evolution during an undergraduate course of study. EcoEvo-MAPS targets foundational concepts in ecology and evolution and uses a novel approach that asks students to evaluate a series of predictions, conclusions, or interpretations as likely or unlikely to be true given a specific scenario. We collected evidence of validity and reliability for EcoEvo-MAPS through an iterative process of faculty review, student interviews, and analyses of assessment data from more than 3000 students at 34 associate’s-, bachelor’s-, master’s-, and doctoral-granting institutions. The 63 likely/unlikely statements range in difficulty and target student understanding of key concepts aligned with the Vision and Change report. This assessment provides departments with a tool to measure student thinking at different time points in the curriculum and provides data that can be used to inform curricular and instructional modifications.

Phylogenetic trees have become increasingly important across the life sciences, and as a result, learning to interpret and reason from these diagrams is now an essential component of biology education. Unfortunately, students often struggle to understand phylogenetic trees. Style (i.e., diagonal or bracket) is one factor that has been observed to impact how students interpret phylogenetic trees, and one goal of this research was to investigate these style effects across an introductory biology course. In addition, we investigated the impact of instruction that integrated diagonal and bracket phylogenetic trees equally. Before instruction, students were significantly more accurate with the bracket style for a variety of interpretation and construction tasks. After instruction, however, students were significantly more accurate only for construction tasks and interpretations involving taxa relatedness when using the bracket style. Thus, instruction that used both styles equally mitigated some, but not all, style effects. These results inform the development of research-based instruction that best supports student understanding of phylogenetic trees.

Instructors communicate what they value about students’ written work through their comments and feedback, and this feedback has the potential to direct how students approach writing assignments. In this study, we examined how graduate student teaching assistants (TAs) attended and responded to students’ written lab reports in an introductory biology course. We collected and analyzed marked lab reports from five TAs and interviewed them about their marking decisions. The results show that TAs attended mainly to writing style and form in their markings and comments on lab reports. However, there were occasions when they attended to students’ scientific reasoning in their markings and during interviews. We provide evidence that TAs’ understanding of the purpose of the laboratory course and assessment structure influenced their attention. We also provide evidence that TAs could shift their attention from style and form to reasoning in response to moment-to-moment contextual cues. Building on these results, we discuss course design and professional development that reframes labs and reports to focus on students’ biological reasoning.

The faculty and student populations in academia are not representative of the diversity in the U.S. population. Thus, research institutions and funding agencies invest significant funds and effort into recruitment and retention programs that focus on increasing the flow of historically underrepresented minorities (URMs) into the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pipeline. Here, we outline challenges, interventions, and assessments by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (GSBS) that increased the diversity of the student body independently of grade point averages and Graduate Record Examination scores. Additionally, we show these efforts progressively decreased the attrition rates of URM students over time while eliminating attrition in the latest cohort. Further, the majority of URM students who graduate from the GSBS are likely to remain in the STEM pipeline beyond the postdoctoral training period. We also provide specific recommendations based on the data presented to identify and remove barriers that prevent entry, participation, and inclusion of the underrepresented and underserved in the STEM pipeline.

The postdoctoral period is generally one of low pay, long hours, and uncertainty about future career options. To better understand how postdocs conceive of their present and future goals, we asked researchers about their scientific identities while they were in their postdoctoral appointments. We used discourse analysis to analyze interviews with 30 scholars from a research-intensive university or nearby research institutions to better understand how their scientific identities influenced their career goals. We identified two primary discourses: bench scientist and principal investigator (PI). The bench scientist discourse is characterized by implementing other people’s scientific visions through work in the laboratory and expertise in experimental design and troubleshooting. The PI discourse is characterized by a focus on formulating scientific visions, obtaining funding, and disseminating results through publishing papers and at invited talks. Because these discourses represent beliefs, they can—and do—limit postdocs’ understandings of what career opportunities exist and the transferability of skills to different careers. Understanding the bench scientist and PI discourses, and how they interact, is essential for developing and implementing better professional development programs for postdocs.

We report the outcomes of a survey of underrepresented minorities (URMs) in life science academic (e.g., faculty) and nonacademic (e.g., research-related) positions seeking to ascertain variables that contribute to their success (e.g., favorable or desired outcome). Given that they had positions in research careers, all respondents were presumed to be successful, and we sought to identify shared factors that were associated with this success. As in previous studies, respondents reported that undergraduate research opportunities, performing research in small- to medium-sized laboratories, and access to mentors throughout all stages of training were important factors for success in their careers. Surprisingly, analysis of the survey results suggests that a record of publications in high–impact factor journals was not essential for their success. There were fundamental differences in the experiences and needs of URMs in academic and nonacademic careers. For example, academic URMs ranked having mentorship as their first choice in order of importance compared with the nonacademic respondents, who ranked this category as their fifth selection. These findings suggest that taking diverse approaches toward these groups is critical for ensuring that all of the most creative minds have an equal opportunity to contribute to realizing our national research goals and diversified workforce.